They make me wonder if the designers know anything about zoology for the various beasts in the back of the MM.
Your thoughts on monsters having six Abilities
- Thread starter cavetroll
- Start date
Scruffy nerf herder
Toaster Loving AdMech Boi
It's not difficult enough to figure out that it's ever bothered me or made me wonder, overmuch, whether I wanted my NPCs to have all 6 attributes.
Pst, pst, don't tell the players this but in practice I often just jot down fresh NPC attributes, combat stats, and whatnot in my notes during the session, so chances are I don't know what that dude's charisma is either until I decided while writing it down during the session.
aramis erak
Legend
OE and AD&D1, you can add the abilities, but they're species relative. So a Str 18 dragon isn't as weak as a Str 18 human, but gets the +1 (OE) or +2 or more (AD&D) to the normal dragon stats, and Con modifies their hit dice normally. There's mention of doing so (and advice not to) in the AD&D DMG.
It's also there in BECMI and Cylodpedia D&D. It's a "warned against but on-label" use.
Now, I honestly do prefer the 5E style with fixed meaning rather than species relative.
I can't remember the 2E DMG advice on it, but I remember it being mentioned.
What it does is gives a GM a feel for whether or not to use various techniques...
for example, if the monster is smarter than the GM and the PC's, it's time to use illusionism so the villain seems suitably smarter than the PCs.
If the monster is more perceptive, it's directly comparable to see if stealth works against it, and using one mechanic for that for both PC vs Monster and Monster vs PC.
Fixed value Strength tells you how much that dragon can carry.
But, as with all things, there is a drawback as well... the drawback is the fixed values themselves. If one wants to randomize, do so... And refigure as needed. Or, be lazy, and just use what's given and be glad the math is done, and you've a grip on relative abilities...
Monsters having ability stats is something that I doubt is going away. I am not a huge fan of trying to mathematically build monsters to the same rules as PCs - I don't think it's necessary and in systems that do it it's a whole lot of extra work for the GM to make new monsters than in systems that don't require it. But once you build the game around attributes and skills and opposed rolls your enemies either need to have those abilities and skills to make things work or you need to put something else in as a proxy for them (fixed DCs for when PCs try to Intimidate or Persuade them, for example), so all things being equal giving them attributes makes as much sense as anything.
Rabulias
the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Agreed. Having the creature's Wisdom can also give guidelines to how susceptible the creature is to being bamboozled by the PCs (or other monsters). Constitution scores can be useful if the PCs and the creature get into an endurance-testing chase or other activity, as well as for drowning/suffocation rules. And there were a few situations in modules that called for Dexterity checks to avoid bad things or traps, and monsters sometimes ended up in those situations, too. The older editions' use of Nonweapon Proficiences would also lead to times you needed to know (or guesstimate) a monster's ability score, most commonly for me with Riding.
Willie the Duck
Hero
Despite a bevy of forum-goers always questioning their abilities, I have no reason to think that they aren't just as knowledgeable in any given fields as we forumites. Whether they care about the IRL zoology of a given beast, on the other hand (particularly in comparison to 'what role do you think these will fill in an average adventure game?'), is another question.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Do note that Charisma is more than how charming or pretty you are. It's also used to determine how terrifying you are as well (such as with Intimidate).
Do note that in the old days, monsters did have ability scores, but usually only Intelligence was called out. If they had an exceptional ability score, it was noted in their stat block, either as simply stating "Their (Cloud Giants) huge morningstars do 6d4+11 points of damage, three times the normal (man-sized) damage plus their strength bonus" (source: TSR2140A Monstrous Compendium) or spelled out (see attached file for a snippet from the Zodar's stat block).
Do note that in the old days, monsters did have ability scores, but usually only Intelligence was called out. If they had an exceptional ability score, it was noted in their stat block, either as simply stating "Their (Cloud Giants) huge morningstars do 6d4+11 points of damage, three times the normal (man-sized) damage plus their strength bonus" (source: TSR2140A Monstrous Compendium) or spelled out (see attached file for a snippet from the Zodar's stat block).
Attachments
In 3e/3.5e, you could in theory just say "Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +4" instead of going through the process of looking up what save progression the creature type in question has, calculating a base save from that and HD, and adding ability bonus. It would be harder in 5e, because saves and skills have a stronger connection with ability scores. Heck, 5e doesn't even technically have "skill checks", they are just a subtype of ability checks where you're allowed to add your proficiency bonus.
A problem with the normal 3e approach is that some creature types, well, suck. Fey, for example, only get a d6 for their HD and an attack bonus equal to HD/2, and have good Reflex/Will saves (HD/2+2) and bad Fortitude saves (HD/3), because someone decided that fey only means pixies and nymphs. That means that if you want a fey that's a "mighty hunter" type, you need to load them down with lots and lots of hit dice to get a good attack bonus and hit points, and as a result they will also get amazing Ref/Will saves (and skills, for that matter).
In 4e and PF2, you'd instead just decide what level this creature is and what its combat role is, and a first draft of the relevant stats pop out by themselves. I think the only places where actual ability scores would matter in PF2 are either defaulting with skills they don't have listed in their stat block, or if the creature is casting a cantrip that involves your casting stat in damage or a similar thing.
No, I don’t like them. Especially when creature creation is based on a benchmark (e.g., PF2 as was mentioned above), they might not even have much to do with the numbers that are actually being used at the table. I’d rather just look up the needed number in a table based on e.g., the creature’s level or hit dice. Having all the fiddly bits strikes me as a leftover from when 3e try to build monsters like PCs.
As a rule of thumb, I want creature and NPC creation to be as streamlined as possible. Ability scores and other features that are really meant for PC progression get in the way of that.
As a rule of thumb, I want creature and NPC creation to be as streamlined as possible. Ability scores and other features that are really meant for PC progression get in the way of that.
I think that theoretically everything should have full statistics, so that everything can be handled symmetrically if a situation that would normally call for them comes up. I do acknowledge, however, that in actual play it's likely that not all will be called for. HOWEVER this applies to humanoid NPCs as much as it does to monsters. AND it's important to note that what may be unlikely to come up in one module may come up frequently in another.
I do agree about the zombie charisma thing though. That should probably be locked at one.
Also, 3e did have some monsters that didn't have a full array of ability scores, and none of them made any sense. None of 3e's rules for non-abilities made any sense. Lack of strength scores for incorporeal creatures ignored the fact that ghost touch items were in the core rules. Lack of consitiution scores for undead was based on a questionable philosophical point and not on any game design consideratio , it actively caused problems from a gamist and simulationist perspective and made no difference at all from a narrativist perspective. Lack of intelligence score had rules attached to it that didn't logically follow from it, like lack of skill points from monster hit dice, despite those being inborn traits. And charisma couldn't be a non-ability, despite the fact that, as noted earlier, it would make at least as much sense for most mindless monsters not to have it as it does for them not to have intelligence scores
I do agree about the zombie charisma thing though. That should probably be locked at one.
Also, 3e did have some monsters that didn't have a full array of ability scores, and none of them made any sense. None of 3e's rules for non-abilities made any sense. Lack of strength scores for incorporeal creatures ignored the fact that ghost touch items were in the core rules. Lack of consitiution scores for undead was based on a questionable philosophical point and not on any game design consideratio , it actively caused problems from a gamist and simulationist perspective and made no difference at all from a narrativist perspective. Lack of intelligence score had rules attached to it that didn't logically follow from it, like lack of skill points from monster hit dice, despite those being inborn traits. And charisma couldn't be a non-ability, despite the fact that, as noted earlier, it would make at least as much sense for most mindless monsters not to have it as it does for them not to have intelligence scores
Similar Threads
